The Tension and Coherence of Love, Identification, and Detachment in Gandhi s thought

Transcription

1 University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School The Tension and Coherence of Love, Identification, and Detachment in Gandhi s thought Sanjay Lal University of Tennessee - Knoxville Recommended Citation Lal, Sanjay, "The Tension and Coherence of Love, Identification, and Detachment in Gandhi s thought. " PhD diss., University of Tennessee, This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact trace@utk.edu.

2 To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Sanjay Lal entitled "The Tension and Coherence of Love, Identification, and Detachment in Gandhi s thought." I have examined the final electronic copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in Philosophy. We have read this dissertation and recommend its acceptance: David Reidy, Kathleen Bohstedt, Miriam Levering (Original signatures are on file with official student records.) John Nolt, Major Professor Accepted for the Council: Dixie L. Thompson Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School

3 To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Sanjay Lal entitled The Tension and Coherence of Love, Identification, and Detachment in Gandhi s thought. I have examined the final electronic copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in Philosophy. John Nolt Major Professor We have read this dissertation and recommend its acceptance: David Reidy Kathleen Bohstedt Miriam Levering Acceptance for the Council Anne Mayhew Vice Chancellor and Dean of Graduate Studies (Original signatures are on file with official student records)

4 THE TENSION AND COHERENCE OF LOVE, IDENTIFICATION, AND DETACHMENT IN GANDHI S THOUGHT A Dissertation Presented for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Sanjay Lal August 2006

5 ABSTRACT Mahatma Gandhi intended for the concepts of universal love and identification with all living beings to be seen as compatible with the traditional Hindu ideal of detachment (sannyasi). This is problematic given that love and identification entail very real degrees of psychological attachment. After showing the significance my project has for the attempt to implement Gandhian principles in everyday, social, and political life, I give an overview of Gandhian thought in my first chapter. This overview demonstrates the plausibility of Gandhi s ideas to philosophical Western readers. Then, in chapter 2, I explore the basis Gandhi saw for conjointly advocating love, identification, and detachment given his overall philosophical and religious background. Again, I endeavor to illuminate Gandhi s thought through careful comparisons to familiar Western thinkers and traditions. In chapter 3, I explore the tensions among the three concepts that are explored and how they might be resolved. I aim to reveal, using the dominant methods of Western philosophy, logical consistency in Gandhi s thought regarding love, identification, and detachment. In chapter 4, I defend my favored resolution of these tensions, namely that atman, the Universal Self is the only proper object of attachment. In particular, I defend the resolution against feminist concerns regarding the place of particularity in genuine moral concern (love) and show that Gandhi is capable of overcoming such concerns in spite of his advocacy of universality, impartiality, and detachment in moral judgments. By drawing parallels between Gandhi s religious universalism and his call for universal moral concern, I show that he is quite capable of valuing particularity while emphasizing universal moral concern. In chapter 5, I summarize the major conclusions I reached about love, identification, and detachment in Gandhi s thought. I conclude my dissertation by laying out areas, in Gandhi s thought, that merit further research. In particular, I show the importance of exploring whether Gandhi s defining of love as an objective concern (not subjective emotion) does justice to love s moral and psychological appeal, whether genuine love must include power (as Gandhi implies), and whether Gandhian identification entails an unflattering presumptiveness. ii

6 PREFACE Given the conflict and violence that continues to engulf the world, Mohandas K. Gandhi s display of love merits serious consideration. Gandhi s exemplification of love influenced (and continues to influence) the world in a way virtually unparalleled in human history. From moving the leaders of British imperialism to see the error of their ways to laying down the framework that inspired non-violent revolutions in other parts of the world, Gandhi s practice of love so crucial to his overall handling of conflict serves as an example for the human race of what its members can achieve. Gandhi sought and revealed truth and wisdom more by his actions than by his arguments. Thus he says, I concern myself not with belief but with asking to do the right thing. As soon as (we) do it belief rights itself. 1 In keeping with the spirit of all good philosophy, Gandhi refused to rest content with his philosophy by a mere consideration of whether it conforms to conventions and everyday intuitions. I decline to be a slave to precedents or practice I cannot understand or defend on a moral basis 2 This work aims to illuminate Gandhi s understanding of love, by focusing on both his actions and words. I hope to help us better understand the methods of pursuing conflict resolution from a Gandhian standpoint of love. Universal love and identification with all living beings are central to the overall philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi intended the concepts of universal love and identification with all living beings to be compatible with the traditional Hindu ideal of detachment (sannyasa; or renunciation of worldly life) a problematic insistence given that love and identification seem to entail a very real degree of psychological attachment. In what follows I will assess whether Gandhi was correct in assuming such compatibility. iii

7 First, in Chapter 1, I will give an overview of Gandhi s philosophy that will provide a background for the examination of tension in that philosophy between love, identification, and detachment. I will show, in my first two chapters, why resolving the tension between love, identification, and detachment is important for a complete understanding of Gandhian thought. After I provide a background in Gandhi s overall philosophy, I will show the basis, in Chapter 2, Gandhi saw for conjointly advocating love, identification, and detachment. I will explain, in that Chapter, why detachment is an ideal for Hindus and why Gandhi regards it as such. I will then explain Gandhi s understanding of universal love and identification with all living beings and why he saw both concepts (together with detachment) as crucial to his ultimate aim the realization of Truth. Ultimately, in Chapter 2, I will show how Gandhi intended universal love and identification with all living beings to help solve the same problems that the Hindus hope to solve by detachment. In the next section of Chapter 2, I will discuss tensions that arise between among different senses of Gandhian detachment and among the following pairs: identification and detachment, love and identification, and love and detachment. I will end Chapter 2 by laying out the questions that arise from that chapter s analysis and that will be explored in the remainder of this dissertation. Then, in Chapter 3, I will explore how the tensions discussed in Chapter 2 can be successfully handled by a Gandhian. A consideration of the kinds of detachment Gandhi advocates will prove significant. Ultimately, by determining which, if any, of those kinds are consistent with the Gandhian concepts of love and identification, we can clarify Gandhi s overall thought. The logical relations among the key concepts of this iv

8 dissertation will be established in Chapter 3 in the attempt to show consistency among those concepts. I will describe the class of actions in which the key Gandhian concepts of love, identification, and detachment are consistently manifested. In my fourth chapter, I will defend my favored resolution to the tensions in Gandhi s philosophy I explore by discussing issues of universality in Gandhi s thought and showing how such universality can be compatible with everyday western intuitions concerning human relationships. I will conclude this dissertation by summarizing the major conclusions reached in the first four chapters. Finally, in my fifth chapter, I will lay out questions which merit further research given the conclusions I reach here. SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS PROJECT Before I embark on the central project of this work, it will help to explore why it is worthwhile to examine the tensions between love, identification, and detachment in Gandhi s thought. Such an examination, on the most practical level, can help guide the professed adherents of Gandhism. Gandhi, for example, insisted that one should love those with whom one is in conflict. For us to understand how and why Gandhi thinks love should be supplemented with an attitude of detachment provides an important standard for one who seeks to practice love in the attempt to resolve conflicts from a Gandhian mindset. Moreover, given that Gandhi advocated self-rule, or swaraj, for a community only after its members attained individual self-rule 3, this project can help in understanding the v

9 nature of individual self-rule for those attempting to institute swaraj from a Gandhian standpoint. This is an attempt that is valiantly pursued by members of Gandhian villages and other social activists throughout India and elsewhere. Individual self-rule requires, as we shall see, a detached mind-state (corollaries of self-control and fearlessness) for Gandhi. Thus understanding what Gandhi means by detachment (a crucial aspect of this project) is important. Understanding Gandhian detachment is also relevant to civil disobedience since Gandhi advocated such disobedience only when the movement is just and led by one of proper virtue (who is both loving and detached). Thus this project will help us understand to what degree a leader of civil disobedience should be, say, passionate if such passion detracts from detachment. Given that there is probably no one in human history who was more successful in pursuing the methods of civil disobedience than Gandhi, we are justified in seeking to better understand the Mahatma s conception of the ideal leader of a civil disobedience (a concept that is included in Gandhi s concept of the ideal renouncer). Seeing consistency among concepts that Gandhi saw to be central to his methods will enable us to see how realizable those methods are in practice. On a more abstract level, embarking on this project can help us understand whether Gandhi s political philosophy is monistic (so that all goods comprise a harmonious whole reducible to a single form of good) as opposed to pluralistic (so that we must seek a balance among conflicting goods). Gandhi saw himself as a monist (Truth for him is the supreme good) but he recognized and attempted to balance many subsidiary forms of good. We shall consider whether he did so consistently. vi

10 We shall also consider the extent to which Gandhi s thought is compatible with the thoughts of others who attempt to address and combat oppressive systems (particularly feminists). Gandhi s views of love and identification (which this project aims to clarify) differ from the conceptions of certain feminists. This apparent variance may underlie differences of thought on how an opponent of oppression should act (e.g. should such an individual value exclusive intimacies). ON GANDHI S METHOD Unlike conventional academic philosophers, Gandhi was overtly unconcerned with appearing consistent through out his writings: At the time of writing I never think of what I have said before. My aim is not to be consistent with my previous statements on a given question, but to be consistent with truth as it may present itself to me at a given moment.[and that has] saved my memory an undue strain. 4 Given this unconcern on Gandhi s part, it may seem that a project like this which explores the issue of whether Gandhi has a basis for consistently advocating love, identification, detachment is not very important. Gandhi obviously did not seem to care whether an overall consistency emerges from the vast body of his written and spoken record. It should be noted, however, that, as the above statements indicate, Gandhi was very concerned with being consistent with Truth. As we shall see, for the Mahatma the vii

11 concepts of love, identification, and detachment are all necessary for the realization of truth (which he repeatedly cites as his ultimate aim). Gandhi emphasized what he took to be the necessity of these concepts throughout his extraordinary career of service and activism. Thus exploring whatever basis exists in Gandhian thought for consistently advocating love, identification, and detachment can help determine the extent to which the Mahatma s overall philosophy can be implemented in everyday, political, and social life. If all three of the considered concepts cannot all be advocated at the same time, and in the same way Gandhi proposes, we will have to do away with one or more of them and thus possibly have to significantly modify Gandhi s philosophy. viii

12 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Overview of Gandhian Thought 1 Chapter 2: Gandhi s Conjoint Advocacy of Detachment, Identification, and Universal Love 19 Chapter 3: A Consideration of Possible Resolutions 48 Chapter 4: Finding the Place of Particularity in Gandhian Love 98 Chapter 5: Dissertation Summary 123 References 127 Vita 139 ix

13 CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF GANDHIAN THOUGHT In this chapter I will provide a background for examining the tension between love, identification, and detachment in Gandhi s thought. Specifically, I will define the most significant elements of the Mahatma s philosophy and show their relation to one another. This chapter will set the stage for showing, in the next chapter, the pivotal role love, identification, and detachment all have for Gandhi s ultimate objective. TRUTH: THE ULTIMATE END The ultimate aim of all Gandhi s action was the realization of truth, as he indicates by the title of his autobiography The story of my experiments with Truth. Gandhi stated in 1936, I was not so much a votary of ahimsa (non-violence) as I was of truth, and I put the latter in the first place and the former in the second. 1 As we will see in greater detail, all of the Mahatma s activities (be they political, social, personal, or economic) were centered around the goal of truth. Everything, in other words, served as a means to truth. Understanding this will help us to detect a unity and consistency in Gandhi s thought. TRUTH IS GOD In the Introduction to Gandhi s autobiography we read: What I want to achieve what I have been striving and pining to achieve 1

14 these thirty years is self-realization, to see God face to face, to attain Moksha. I live and move and have my being in pursuit of this goal. All that I do by way of speaking and writing, and all my ventures in the political field, are directed to this same end. 2 Gandhi s identification of truth with God implies that seeing God face to face is the same as realizing truth: For me, truth is the sovereign principle which includes numerous other principles. This truth is not only truthfulness in word, but truthfulness in thought also, and not only the relative truth of our conception, but the Absolute Truth, the Eternal Principle, that is God. 3 Gandhi discusses, in My Religion, 4 the transformation that led him from his early view that God is truth to his famous conclusion that truth is God. He is drawn to the latter view on the grounds that while the objective validity of the concept of God may be doubted and denied, the objective validity of the concept of truth cannot be denied without, at the very least, acknowledging it. 5 How some realists understand truth is quantitatively identical to Gandhi s idea of God. For the Mahatma, truth is identical with (as opposed to a kind of correspondence with) reality (sat). Indeed it is the only reality and thus God is synonymous with ultimate (objective) reality (an idea similar to those of prominent Christian thinkers like Paul Tillich and St. Augustine). It is the truth concept, not the God one, which is given the most prominence by the Mahatma. Thus we can see a distinctive quality in Gandhi s religious thought that went beyond simply making the God concept palatable to atheists. For Gandhi, God is affirmed even in the unbelief of the atheist. For in denying the reality of God, the atheist is affirming how things appear to him and thereby affirming (at least a relative) truth. We will soon see that for the Mahatma a relative truth is what one believes to be true at the moment. Gandhi stated in a 1931 lecture to atheists in 2

15 Lausanne: (Not) even atheists have denied the necessity or power of Truth. Not only so. In their passion for discovering the truth they have not hesitated even to deny the very existence of God from their own point of view rightly. And it was because of their reasoning that I saw that I was not going to say God is Truth but Truth is God 6 Elsewhere we read, God is the Denial of the atheist He is even the atheism of the atheist. 7 By denying the objective validity of truth, the skeptic, after all and if nothing else, is conceiving an objective reality that truth claims are measured against. We are able to tell whether a truth claim can be doubted or denied because a criterion and conception of objectivity exists (independently of our wishes). As some moral realists have argued, 8 skepticism is self-refuting not so much because it asserts a truth when attempting to deny all truth but because it appeals to external standards and conceptions of which we must have knowledge before we can feel its force. We can, for example, criticize a mother s defense of her child s behavior for being clouded with subjective emotion because we can imagine a mother in a similar situation not allowing such subjectivity to influence her judgment. We know (if only intuitively) what would have to be the case in order for a completely subjective judgment to be objectively valid. Such knowledge itself qualifies as objectively valid and thus acknowledges the objective reality of truth. Moreover, that Gandhi equates truth with reality (sat) bolsters his views. 9 Only the most committed anti-realists deny the existence of anything. Later, we will see how Gandhi s identification of truth with reality is indicated by his contention that truth is the only reality. As noted above, Gandhi seems to understand relative truth as that which is 3

16 believed by the individual. The definition of Truth is deposited in every human heart. Truth is that which you believe to be true at this moment, and that is your God. 10 Gandhi s words here indicate a relativistic mindset toward truth. However, the Mahatma steadfastly affirms, throughout his writings, the objective reality of absolute truth. (W)hat appear to be different truths are like the countless and apparently different leaves of the same tree. 11 Divergence of understanding results from differences in perception, not opinion, given the many aspects of truth. 12 Differences of opinion arise as a part of divergences of understanding and as a result of differences in perception. While Gandhi obviously thinks that some opinions are wrong, as we shall see, these wrong opinions virtually always result from mistaking relative truth for the absolute (a form of dogmatism) and from departing from the only path (non-violence) by which fuller understandings of truth can be realized. We perceive different aspects of the same ultimate reality, not different realities. It is when we erroneously regard the aspects of reality we perceive as being complete and proceed to coercively impose those perceptions on others (a form of violence) that untruth arises (e.g. others are compelled to act in ways that go against their own perceptions [truths]). Such is indicated by Gandhi s claim that Where there is honest effort 13 the seemingly different truths can be seen as analogous to the leaves of the same tree referred to above. Ultimately, the relativity of our perceptions of the Absolute shows the way to conflict resolution. An astute understanding of the different, fragmentary perceptions of truth reveals a united whole. Hence Gandhi s statements, I very much like this doctrine of the manyness of reality. It is this doctrine which has taught me to judge a Musalman from his own standpoint and a Christian from his. 14 4

17 Absolute truth, for Gandhi, is ultimately indefinable and cannot be fully realized while existing in a body: It is impossible for us to realize perfect Truth so long as we are imprisoned in the mortal frame. We cannot, through the instrumentality of this ephemeral body, see face to face Truth which is eternal. 15 Gandhi seemingly accepts the traditional eastern view (which has included Socratic thinkers, among other westerns, as its subscribers) that the body always distorts and limits one s perceptions (to whatever extent) as one with bodily existence cannot be completely free of attachments. The above statements from My Religion indicate, however, the relative truths (what we perceive and understand in everyday life) are incorporated by the sovereign principle which is Absolute truth. To Gandhi this is the case since the former truths presuppose, and can only be understood in light of, the latter. 16 While one with bodily existence cannot fully realize truth, it dwells in all completely. Gandhi finds evidence of this in what he sees to be a universal moral conscience. There is an inmost center of us all, where Truth abides in fullness. Every wrong-doer knows within himself that he is doing wrong. 17 By asserting this, Gandhi does not so much mean that within all of us knowledge of all facts are contained, but that the active, cosmic spirit which is truth (God) dwells fully in all as (among other things) a detached observer of our actions. The existence of psychopaths notwithstanding, the presence of moral sentiments among normally functioning humans lends credence to Gandhi s view here. Minds without a moral conscience are defective, for whatever reason, (and those possessing such minds may be all the more alienated from the Ultimate truth within). Gandhi s abiding faith in humanity which led him to see even the hardest of hearts as capable of conversion underscores his belief that truth dwells within 5

18 all. Since one cannot realize Absolute truth in this life, for Gandhi the relative truths of everyday life are our only guides for advancing on the path to God-realization. Such realization entails experiencing (not just becoming aware of) an absolute oneness with all that exists. If a man worships this relative truth, he is sure to attain the Absolute Truth, (i.e. God) in the course of time. 18 The virtues of identification and detachment become paramount in order to be guided properly by (to properly worship) relative truths. This is the case given the two conditions which Gandhi thinks must be met for relative truth to lead us appropriately: (1) we must keep our minds open and be willing to correct ourselves should the situation arise; (2) we must be willing to continually undergo necessary self-purification. 19 In regards to the first requirement, Gandhi calls on the seeker of Truth to be of utter humility: The seeker of the truth should be humbler than the dust. The world crushes the dust under its feet, but the seeker after Truth should so humble himself that even the dust could crush him. Only then, and not until then, will he have a glimpse of truth. 20 The connection of the first condition to identification and nonviolence, and not just humility, is made clear by both the inevitable relativity of our grasp of truth and the diverse, seemingly incompatible views people have of what is true in everyday life. For one s own understanding of truth to become fuller and for those with differing understandings (relative truths) to reach greater mutual understandings one must, in Rex Ambler s words, pass over 21 from one view to another and one situation to another and come back to one s own view and situation with greater insights. This kind of identification requires the practice of non-violence as we cannot embark on the quest of 6

19 understanding the views of others if we are harming them. Instead, we are regarding our views as being so inerrant and complete that we coercively impose them on others which, in turn, creates untruth since it causes the others to act in ways that is at variance with what they believe to be the case. Thus we are kept from more fully understanding those whose perceptions are different from ours. Identification ultimately leads the way for realizing the absolute oneness of truth. The oneness of reality is the backdrop Gandhi adopts in determining whether what passes for truth can meet what he sees to be the only proper criterion: it makes for wholeness in practice-- The Inner Voice may mean a message from God or the Devil for both are wrestling in the human breast. Acts determine the nature of the voice. 22 As we shall see in greater detail later, the right acts for Gandhi are those which are wholly beneficial and unifying to us. In judging the actions of men, we should always apply the test, whether it conduces to the welfare of the world or not. 23 While some, like Nietzsche, would deny a relation between truth and welfare, Gandhi s view that the benefits of pursuing the right action cannot always be immediately noticed is helpful here (a view that will be more fully discussed in Chapter 3). As long as actions conduce to the welfare of the world in the long run (after some reasonable length of time), they can pass the test Gandhi puts forth. Furthermore, according to the Mahatma the discovery and pursuit of truth is not always pleasant (e.g. when it undermines the majority s sense of superiority over the minority) or easy (since it requires conquering the passions). What s more is that advancing the welfare of the world is neither the conscious objective nor even the standard for determining the right action. Thus Gandhi is not committed to a relation between truth and welfare that 7

20 undermines the centrality he gives to truth. Instead, Gandhi seems merely to hold that the right action (which reveals Truth) is more valuable than the correct conclusion, by itself, and that such action is manifest in one who sincerely seeks Truth. Although these statements may indicate that Gandhi advocates a pragmatic and/or utilitarian criterion of truth, that understanding does not do his view proper justice. To the Mahatma, acts that benefit others are the natural by-products and not the aim of following truth the only inherent good. (Once) we adhere to truth, the law comes to our aid naturally. 24 The requirement for continual self-purification in order to more clearly see Truth is obviously related to the necessity of detachment. Self-purification for Gandhi involves becoming detached from the sense pleasures which are the objects of desire and such purification helps extinguish subjectivity in one s perceptions of truth. While truth is ultimately self-evident, its reflections get distorted by subjectivity, and self-purification can overcome such distortions. J.N. Mohanty explains: We may indeed distinguish between two different attitudes towards truth: the attitude which expresses itself in the spontaneity of thought in the constructions of theories and models and in gradual approximation of one s constructions toward truth; and the attitude which expresses itself in total receptivity, in gradual elimination of theoretical constructions, in purifying the mind as one cleanses a mirror so that it may reflect truth. Gandhi s attitude is the second one. 25 It should be noted that, for Gandhi, the explicit task in realizing truth is to eliminate not theoretical constructions but fear and desire. Mohanty s clean mirror metaphor is nonetheless applicable to Gandhi s thought, since the Mahatma clearly seeks a pure reflection of reality. Some epistemologists, however deny that such a pure reflection can exist. 26 Even though Gandhi agrees with such philosophers by holding that 8

21 a concept free (pure) perception of things is not possible while we have bodily existence, Gandhi, unlike anti-realist philosophers, maintains we can get closer to having such a perception in this life by embarking on identification and self-purification. GANDHI S EPISTEMIC METHOD For a defense of a Gandhi-like approach to knowledge of God (i.e. Truth) see Alston. 27 Experience is for Gandhi an essential aspect of knowledge of God [and he made no greater appeal than to experiences (both his own and those of others who sought self-purification) in affirming the reality of Truth and God]. Gandhi states: (For) an experienced person to ask another to believe without being able to prove that there is God is humbly to confess his limitations and to ask another to accept in faith the statement of his experience. It is merely a question of that person s credibility. In ordinary matters of life we accept in faith the word of persons on whom we choose to rely although we are often cheated. Why may we not then in matters of life and death accept the testimony of sages all the world over that there is God and that He is to be seen by following Truth and Innocence (non-violence)? True faith is appropriation of the reasoned experience of people whom we believe to have lived a life purified by prayer and penance. 28 Alston shows that a person can become justified in holding certain kinds of beliefs about [the existence, attributes, and actions of] God by virtue of perceiving God as being or doing so-and-so 29 On this view, as on Gandhi s, putative experiences of God justify one in believing, say, that Truth exists and is God provided that the beliefs, given the circumstances under which they were formed and the nature of the experiences that led to them, are probably true. 30 The kind of epistemic justification Alston has in mind is, what he calls, the strong position conception of justification. 31 According to that conception, belief p is 9

22 justified only if the objective probability of p, given one s grounds for believing that p and the circumstances under which one formed the belief, exceed one-half. 32 Thus experience justifies believing in the existence of God and that God is Truth provided that the nature of the experience and its role in forming one s belief make it objectively likely that God exists and is Truth. Thus we can embark on purifying ourselves in the quest for more fully attaining a reflection (experiencing) pure, concept free ultimate reality (God). A putative perception of God as Truth justifies one s belief that God is Truth if the belief is, given the experiences, at least probably true. Such justification is akin to the justification one has in accepting, based on sense experience, the existence of an external reality. As Alston shows in his third chapter, we cannot non-circularly show that sense perception (among other doxastic practices ) generates beliefs that are likely to be true. Like Gandhi, Alston too holds that the act of forming beliefs about God based on putative perceptions is firmly established in the religious communities that employ it. Thus practitioners of self-purification can reasonably regard their experienced based beliefs as prima facie justified. Alston concludes that since there is no good reason to regard religious experience as unreliable, we cannot blame practitioners for continuing to rely on such experiences. The act is practically rational. 33 Alston states, It is a reasonable supposition that a practice would not have persisted over large segments of the population unless it was putting people into effective touch with some aspects of reality. 34 One must practice non-violence in meeting each of the two conditions Gandhi sees as necessary for realizing Truth, given that the engagement in violence brings with it attachment to desire and passion (which undermines self-purification) Ahimsa (non- 10

23 violence) being the necessary and indispensable means for Truth s discovery. 35 The acknowledgement that one s perception of truth is always partial and can be enriched by the different yet similarly partial perception of another yields a humility and dialogue that is contrary to the dogmatism and oppression violence typically brings. Inflicting violence on others, moreover, impedes identification, as such infliction tends to entail justifying the violent behavior (since the one inflicting the violence is usually treating others in a way he does not want to be treated). This inevitably entails assuming a distinction between oneself and those on the receiving end of one s violence. Even in cases in which the realization of Truth seems to result from excessive violence (e.g. Holocaust survivors who saw that beauty can be found in even the most horrendous of situations) it is those on the receiving end of the violence (the sufferers) who tend to have the greatest (untainted) realization. Whatever truth may be gained and accessed by inflicting violence is usually offset by the decline in virtue (e.g. moral regression) that comes with engaging in violence. Thus nonviolence is the only means for making genuine progress on the quest for truth. The method Gandhi advocates for revealing Truth to others (particularly opponents) is satyagraha (a term created by Gandhi from the Sanskrit words satya -- truth and agraha -- holding firm to [translated by Gandhi to mean force ]). Ultimately, according to Gandhi, it is neither coercion nor solely rational argumentation that can bring about change in the other s perception of truth and enable a more complete mutually shared understanding to emerge. What is required is a willingness to suffer for and advance one s convictions by non-violent means. Such moral suasion evokes a change of the other s perception of truth that ultimately arises within them and thus is 11

24 more likely to last. Gandhi states: I have come to this fundamental conclusion that if you want something really important to be done, you must not merely satisfy the reason, you must move the heart also. The appeal of reason is more to the head, but the penetration of the heart comes from suffering. It opens up the inner understanding in man. 36 While suffering may be seen as rousing passions and thus be incompatible with the detachment necessary to see truth, if the point of suffering is seen as forcing an opponent to examine the justifications of his actions and not to elicit sympathy or disdain for the satyagrahi, we can see the role suffering can play in revealing truth. By not cooperating with the laws imposed on them by imperial rulers and by willingly suffering the consequences, Indian satyagrahis, for example, forced the British to examine the basis of their imperialistic rule. This ultimately led the British to see the unjustness of imperialism. HINDU THOUGHT AND THE IDEAL OF DETACHMENT Some background on the division in Hindu thought between self and atman as well as between nature and spirit can help clarify the issues before us. It is in line with traditional Hindu understanding that each living being is made up of both a unique psychological self (consisting of such distinctive traits as an individual s temperaments, dispositions, and propensities) and a soul-like, transcendental ego, known as atman the ultimate reality or cosmic spirit manifested in all living beings. Atman is the same (full and uninterrupted) in all such beings. Atman is fully manifested (though not always fully apparent) in the sense that it is the only reality and undifferentiated (so it is not broken 12

25 down into separate, limited parts). Therefore, it is not accurate (in the strict sense) to think of atman as being the same as that which western theology typically calls soul. Soul, typically if not exclusively, is regarded in western thought as being a particle or part of divinity (if it is regarded as being divine at all) and is thought to be different for each being that possesses one. The soul is personal. Atman is impersonal. Ultimate Reality (for which atman and God are synonymous terms) is pure being, consciousness, detachment, and bliss. Since atman is impersonal so too, Gandhi thinks is truth. It is only in the everyday world of relative truth, personal gods, and particularity that atman, God, being, and truth seem distinct. Ultimately, God (or truth) is not for Gandhi a personal being but a principle manifest as an active cosmic spirit a reality that provides and serves. Our everyday experiences (particularly in religion and the arts) lend credence to this view of truth. 37 Enjoyment by and large comes naturally (without conscious effort) to humans. This indicates that reality, which Gandhi designates by the word sat (the same word in Sanskrit which designates truth), provides us with that which becomes enjoyable and fulfilling once we perceive it. Thus truth (reality) is active. It is only when we strip such experiences of their immediate, informative, and supposedly subjective elements that we retain the view of truth as cold and unconcerned. That Law which governs all life is God. Law and Law-giver are one. 38 Gandhi understands that for humans it is difficult to avoid personalizing any concept of God, and concedes the necessity of recognizing God as possessing form. 39 He is a personal God to those who need His personal presence. He is embodied to those who need His personal presence. He is the purest essence. 40 However, Gandhi always gave a 13

26 higher place to the impersonal conception of God (as pure essence or being). In addition to the nature traditionally attributed to atman, Gandhi regards love to be a part of its nature. Gandhi holds that the practice of non-violence (ahimsa) is required of everyone, not just those who are inclined toward it. I am certain that nonviolence is meant for all time. It is an attribute of the atman and is, therefore, universal since the atman belongs to all. 41 As will be discussed in greater detail later, non-violence is the same as the law of love for Gandhi. Thus making non-violence an attribute of atman would be the same for the Mahatma as making love such an attribute. Gandhi seems to base his conclusion that atman has the attribute of love on the notion that it is the ultimate provider and source of truth and life. That Gandhi sees both love and detachment (impersonal concern) as properties of atman will prove to have significant implications in determining the extent to which both love and detachment can be consistently advocated. For Gandhi, Our own atman is beyond reason. 42 While Gandhi affirms reason as a useful tool at one stage of understanding in such matters he is convinced that one, who knows atman with his intellect only does not know (it) at all. Just as intellectual knowledge of the benefits of eating food does not by itself help one to enjoy those benefits one who is knowledgeable of atman (a.k.a. God, Truth) without direct experience with it can never satisfactorily comprehend it as ultimate reality. Like the eye that does the seeing but is not seen itself and the underlying self that observes changing perceptions but does not itself change, atman is ultimately the Knower but not an object of knowledge. 43 Absolute truth is, moreover, the standard by which all else is judged even though it, itself, cannot be fully known while we exist in bodies. The first hand 14

27 experience necessary for satisfactorily comprehending atman, is made possible by faith. Faith and the first-hand experience to which faith leads are the two stages of satisfactory knowledge of God. 44 Gandhi is insistent on a type of faith that is compatible with reason. The conclusions of faith cannot be at variance with what one learns from reason. Bhiku Parekh characterizes the role of reason in Gandhi s religious thought: Every belief must pass the test of reason, but that did not mean that it could not transcend or go beyond it. Reason laid down the minimum not the maximum, and specified what we may not but not what we must belief. 45 This characterization is in keeping with Gandhi s rejection of the religious justification, offered by Hindu teachers, of untouchability--that members of lower castes deserve to be mistreated given their own misdeeds in previous lives. In 1925, Gandhi debated Vaikam pundits who appealed to the authority of sacred scripture to bolster this claim. Insisting that any writing that could justify such injustice is not sacred, Gandhi tried to show the pundits the evils of untouchability in ways that went beyond simply putting forth a different interpretation of religious teachings. The Mahatma recounts, I appealed to their reason. I appealed to their humanity. And I appealed to the Hinduism in them. 46 Elsewhere Gandhi states, I decline to be bound by any interpretation, however learned it may be, if it is repugnant to reason or moral sense. 47 The goal in Hinduism is, of course, to attain liberation from the cycles of birth and death (moksha). It is the psychological self from which Hindus seek liberation as that is the product of each being s actions (be they actions from this life or previous ones) according to dominant Hindu thought. This is the case even though atman is the only 15

28 reality. The psychological self reincarnates from life to life and it is the atman that accumulates karma (the force by which the consequences of actions are determined) by subsuming the psychological self. The empirical, psychological self (which, like our bodies, results from causal processes that extend over many lifetimes) dwells in the atman. 48 The psychological self, which is what differentiates beings from one another in the natural world, is a part of nature (prakriti) while the atman or pure transcendental ego comprises spirit (purusha) that lies beyond the natural world in the dualistic nature/spirit Hindu scheme. The Bhagavad-Gita Chapter 7: illustrates this division between nature and spirit by analogy with the division between field (nature) and the knower of the field (spirit). Just as the field is the place where events like growth, decline, and other changes take place, it is the psychological self (which includes the body) that experiences transitions. The knower of the field insofar as the knower is inactive and detached, is said to resemble the pure transcendental ego known as atman. Since it is the psychological self that is the product of each being s actions and since it is that same self which differentiates beings from one another, Hindu thinkers regard letting go of the psychological self and thereby realizing atman (in all its uninterrupted form) as the means for attaining moksha. This clearly seems to be Gandhi s idea when he states, I do believe that complete annihilation of one s self individuality, sensuality, personality whatever you call it, is an absolute condition of perfect joy and peace. 50 As noted earlier, pure bliss is an attribute of atman. Thus for Gandhi realizing the bliss of perfect joy and peace would be the same as realizing atman. 16

29 AGAPE (CHARITY) AND EROS Now brief discussion about how love has been understood philosophically is of relevance since it can enrich the background offered here. In the Western tradition, agape is the term most typically used to refer to the kind of love Gandhi advocates. Agape, commonly defined as unselfish love for all, 51 has been contrasted in the history of Western philosophy since at least the time of Democritus with eros. Eros was regarded in pre-socratic discussions as love associated with eroticism (sensual pleasures) and with forms in general and beauty in particular in more sophisticated discussions (like those of Plato and the neo-platonists). 52 Instances of Gandhian thought and commentary cited below indicate clearly that Gandhi advocates something like agape, 53 or unselfish love for all. Gandhi states, Perhaps love does not express my meaning fully. The nearest word is charity. 54 Given that charity (in the sense of the Latin word caritas ) is typically identified in Christian thought with agape, we can see a basis for maintaining that Gandhi does, in fact, advocate something like agape. Gandhi asserts that Paul s understanding of love in the New Testament is for all practical purposes identical to his own. Ahimsa means love in the Pauline sense, and yet something more than the love defined by St. Paul, although I know St. Paul s beautiful definition is good enough for all practical purposes. 55 The additional elements that Gandhi sees ahimsa to have which are not included in St. Paul s definition (e.g. non-possession, non-consequentialism, ascetism) will be explored in Chapter 3. For Gandhi, genuine love requires truth as its goal. Without truth there is no 17

30 love; without truth, it may be affection as for one s country to the injury of others: or infatuation, as of a young girl: or love may be unreasoning or blind; as of ignorant parents for their children. 56 In this remark we can already see the tension in Gandhi s thought between love and detachment as genuine love does not seem to run contrary to unreasoning, blind, and even injurious emotion. CONCLUSION In this chapter I have offered an introductory overview of Gandhi s central ideas. The background provided by this chapter will prove useful during the rest of this dissertation. As I explore the tensions in Gandhi s thought between love, identification, and detachment, key concepts put forth in this chapter will aide in better understanding both the presence and significance of the tension as well as possible resolutions to it. 18

31 CHAPTER II: GANDHI S CONJOINT ADVOCACY OF DETACHMENT, IDENTIFICATION, AND UNIVERSAL LOVE In this chapter I will explore Gandhi s justification for conjointly advocating love, identification, and detachment given his overall philosophy. This chapter is intended to shed light on the nature of the tension among those concepts collectively, [and among different senses of each in Gandhi s thought]. Each of the concepts will be treated separately in order to show their relation to Gandhi s ultimate existential aim (Truth). Gandhi s conjoint advocacy of love, identification, and detachment is perhaps most glaring in the farewell he wrote to his autobiography. We read: To see the universal and all pervading Spirit of Truth face to face one must be able to love the meanest of creation as oneself. And a man who aspires after that cannot afford to keep out of any field of life Identification with everything that lives is impossible without selfpurification God can never be realized by one who is not pure of heart. Selfpurification therefore must mean purification in all walks of life. And purification being highly infectious, purification of oneself necessarily leads to the purification of one s surroundings. But the path of self-purification is hard and steep. To attain to perfect purity one has to become absolutely passion free in thought, speech, and action: to rise above the opposing currents of love and hatred, attachment, and repulsion To conquer the subtle passions seems to me to be harder far than the physical conquest of the world by the force of arms So long as a man does not of his own free will put himself last among his fellow creatures there is no salvation for him. 1 That Gandhi admonishes the reader, in the same excerpt, to both love the meanest of creation as oneself (and thus identify with everything that lives ) and to rise above the opposing currents of love and hatred, attachment, and repulsion underscores the tension in his thought between love and identification, on the one hand, and detachment, on the other. Gandhi s emphasis on self-purification can be seen as further endorsement of detachment, since Gandhi regards self-purification as attainable 19

32 only by the renunciation of desires. 2 An individual seeking realization of the Highest will, he says, seek out the passions lingering in the innermost recesses of his heart and will incessantly strive to get rid of them. Renouncing passions entails detachment from the fruits (e.g. sense pleasures, results) that are the aim of passions, for once the fruits are no longer desired the passions can be more easily extinguished. In regard to renunciation (detachment) Gandhi cites, in his autobiography, chapter II verse 59 of the Bhagavad- Gita. The passage in the Gita states, The sense-objects turn away from an abstemious soul leaving the relish behind. The relish also disappears with the realization of the Highest. 3 Later, in chapter 3, we will see this passage exemplified by Gandhi s brahmacharya vow, which aimed to extinguish desires for non-procreative sex, excessive eating and the like. Gandhi s farewell shows that all three prominent concepts love, identification, and detachment have the same goal for Gandhi namely, the realization of truth. Gandhi invokes this goal in the farewell (in which he affirms loving the meanest of creation as oneself To see the all pervading Spirit of Truth face to face. ) as well as in his statement to S. Radhakrishnan, Realization of Truth is impossible without complete merging of oneself in, and identification with (the) limitless ocean of life. 4 The goal is also emphasized in Gandhi s statement that The realization of truth can only be attained by the man of pure detachment. 5 That for Gandhi universal love, identification with all living beings, and detachment all have the same goal is constitutive of the inherent tensions among those concepts in his thought. We cannot suppose, for example, that identifying with all and detachment are unrelated activities for the Mahatma and thus that no inherent tension 20